RE: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and alternate chair

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 12:46 29/03/2001 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Harald and all remaining members:-
>Excuse me? This is the first I have heard that the GA Election rules are a
>mockery. The mockery is that if a candidate needs 10 endorsements to be
>considered legitimate by the body that rubber stamps the people's choice,
>then GA Election Rules should reflect that, and not state only 2
>endorsements. This amounts to changing the rules in the middle of an
>election. You cannot do that.

I sometimes feel that I am made a mockery of, yes.
I drafted the rules that I think make sense (that you need 2 endorsers, 
which means that at least one other person has to like you enough to 
endorse you).
I also wrote the rules to allow self endorsements and multiple endorsements.

I HOPE that these rules will be around a lot longer than the NC rule set.

But - the NC chose to follow "exactly the same procedure as last year", I 
assume without any discussion of the details. This included the "10 
endorsements required" limit.

This has not proved a big hurdle in the past (most candidates for Board 
representative sailed right past it when nominated); I guess the NC never 
thought about it, and I kept silent, hoping that it would not be a problem.
But now, through voter apathy or attention to other matters, we have been 
caught on the horns of this dilemma; both the NC and the GA have adopted 
their rulesets, and changing them now would indeed be changing the rules in 
the middle of an election.

>With the greatest respect, you drafted the Rules. Why have you waited until
>now to raise the issue? I read all the discussion on the GA ML on this
>topic, and in WG-Review, and furthermore, you were actively involved in
>those discussions. At no time was any reference made to this NC rule that
>has now suddenly popped up out of nowhere.

announcement of unchanged rules:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00637.html
mention of the "rule of ten":
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010226.NCtelecon-minutes.html (agenda item 5)

Unfortunately, it did not pop out of "nowhere". If it had, we could send it 
right back there.


>The NC's job right now is to sit back and wait until due process has been
>completed. What you are suggesting is that the NC will now impose their own
>choice of candidate over the top of this election. That would not be very
>clever. This is not going to fly with those in the media who have power the
>NC can only dream about. There is nothing in your comment that fits with a
>sense of fair play and frankly, I am very disappointed to think the NC would
>stoop so low.

The comment I heard from the NC was that the NC hoped to "appoint" the GA 
chair this year in the same sense that the Queen of England "appoints" the 
Prime Minister: because it is the right thing to do.
I think no NC member is less unhappy with this silliness than I am.

Go endorse!


--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html